Recording in progress.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'd like to uh call the February 5th, 2026 Washoe County Board of Adjustment meeting to order.

May we please have a determination of quorum.

Kathy Julian.

Leo Harishni.

Present.

Peter Cashon.

Present.

Pat Caldwell.

Present.

Rob Pierce.

President.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Everyone would please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag.

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God.

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

May we please have the ethics law announcement.

Commissioners are reminded that if with respect to any matter or person coming before the commission today, you have received a gift or loan.

You have a pecuniary interest.

You have a commitment in a private capacity, such as a family employment, business or similar relationship.

Or you provided representation or counseling before an agency to a person or entity for compensation within the last year on a matter being considered.

You must disclose that gift loan interest commitment or prior representation at the time the matter is being considered.

And you must furthermore abstain from deliberation or voting on a matter if it is clear from that gift loan interest commitment or prior representation.

You would meet you would materially affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person.

Commissioners are also reminded of the no not applicable.

Never mind.

That's it.

May we please have the uh appeal procedure.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Most decisions rendered by the planning, uh, sorry, by the board of adjustment are appealable uh to the board of county commissioners.

If you disagree with the decision of the board of adjustment and you qualify as an agreed person or party, you may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date that the decision being appealed is reduced to writing file with the secretary of the planning of the board of adjustment and mailed to the original applicant in the proceeding being appealed in accordance with Washoe County Code.

Please call the planning staff immediately at 775328-610 for information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Thank you.

Do we have any general public comment?

There's no public comment in chambers and no general public comment in the did you want to make general public comment or for a specific item?

I have you for the item.

This is just general public comment.

He's gonna do it uh uh the item.

Okay public comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um the February 5th, 2026 agenda.

We need to make a modification before we move to approve it.

We are going to pull WP V A R 25-0010515 roads berm variants.

So with that change, do I have a motion?

Mr.

Rob might move to accept it with the change as written.

Thank you.

This is uh Leo Rishny, I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Motion carries.

The January 5th, 2026 draft minutes.

Is everyone reviewed?

Any comments, changes, questions?

No.

I make a motion to accept as written.

Mr.

Pack Caldwell, I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve the January 5th, 2026 draft minutes.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Okay, we are on to public hearing item 8B, variance case number WPVAR25-0011, 515 roads wall height variants.

Mr.

Lloyd.

For hearing discussion and possible action to a approve variance to exceed the maximum wall height from six feet to 15 feet eight inches.

Uh the proposed variance is requested to bring into compliance an existing uh 95-foot long uh wall with a height of 15 feet and eight inches.

The wall is located along the property's east side.

Uh representing Washoe County in this matter is uh planner Jolene Bertetto.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Great.

Jolene Bertetto, planner.

I can hear it now.

Today we are looking at the variance for WPVAR 250011, which we are referring to as the 515 roads wall height variants.

Starting off with the parcel background, the subject property is located at 515 Rhodes Road.

The parcel size is a little over five acres.

The master plan designation is suburban residential, and the regulatory zone is low density suburban in the South Valleys planning area.

The variance request.

The applicant is seeking a variance on the wall height requirements per the Washoe County Development Code, which states that the maximum height for fences, walls, or perimeter planning planting is six feet.

The applicants do have an existing wall that exceeds that six feet maximum height, and they are requesting to varying to vary the standard to bring into compliance that existing wall located near the applicant's eastern property line.

This is a look at the site plan just to show where the location is of that wall.

You can see it over on the eastern side of that parcel.

Some more about the wall.

The subject wall is 15 feet eight inches in height.

It is 95 feet long.

According to the applicants, it was constructed eight years ago, and it is mounted with various bird houses.

The graphic here just shows a segment of the wall to show its height in regard to a pedestrian and an example of those mounted bird houses.

And here is a picture of the wall.

This was provided in the application.

This is from the back side of the wall.

The bird houses are mounted on the other side.

Now, when evaluating an application for a variance, we are looking at specific characteristics of the parcel according to the Nevada revised statutes.

We are looking at is there exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the specific piece of property?

Are there exceptional topographic conditions?

Or are there other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions of the piece of property where adhering to the code would create a hardship because of those characteristics?

And I'll go over each of those three now.

The first looking at narrowness or shape of the property.

This is a picture of the parcel.

The parcel width exceeds the minimum width for the low density suburban zone.

The parcel size exceeds the minimum parcel size, and the parcel shape is not considered unique for that for the area.

Looking at topography, the parcels topography is level and gently sloping.

It's gently sloping up towards the road.

Other parcels in the area have a similar topography.

So we did not find that topography created an created an exceptional situation.

Now, extraordinary circumstances.

And going back to the purpose of variances, this is taken directly from the county code, and I'll read it for the record.

The purpose of Article 804 variances is to provide a means of altering the requirements of this chapter in specific instances where the strict application of those requirements would deprive a property of privileges enjoyed by other properties with the identical regulatory zone because of special features or constraints unique to the property involved.

And after reviewing this application, it is staff's opinion that the strict application of, in this case, the wall height requirements would not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties.

But that furthermore, approval of the wall height variants would be considered a special privilege for the applicants, as other properties in the same regulatory zone would be prohibited by code from building a similar wall.

For noticing and public comments, 33 property owners were notified.

And we did receive eight public comments in support of the wall.

And one of those public comment letters was from the property directly next to the wall.

That takes us to the findings, where, as mentioned in this presentation, staff is unable to make finding A and C.

And so we are recommending denial of the variance application and provide a possible motion of denial.

And I'm available for questions.

I do believe the applicant is here and they prepared a presentation as well.

Thank you.

Does anybody have questions for staff?

Oh, I can go back.

Or what did you say?

For the findings, we are unable to make finding A and C.

C.

So A of special circumstances and C of no special privileges.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff at this time.

The applicant present, and do they wish to make a presentation?

Mr.

Chairman, board members, good afternoon.

For the record, Garrett Gordon today on behalf of Curtis and Judy Coulter.

Mr.

Coulter is here with me today.

He is the property owner of the subject site.

Perfect.

First of all, uh, this is being called a wildlife preservation wall.

There's no definition in county code for wall.

So you look at a fence.

And this is behind the fence on the property, so arguably it's not a fence.

So what is this?

We looked up the definition of what we're trying to accomplish here, and a wildlife habitat structure designed to provide biodiversity by providing shelter, specifically specifically nesting cavities.

So I want you to think about, if you don't mind, as we go through here, what exactly this is and if it does, in fact, violate this six-foot fence requirement.

So the findings, very important.

I certainly know with my legal background that variances are few and far between.

Not every day do I come and ask you for a variance.

Extraordinary, uh, exceptional situation.

I'm gonna go through my presentation, but let me just address maybe A and C where staff had some concerns.

I would argue that there is no doubt that this is exceptional, given there is a 700-year-old tree on the property, the oldest tree in Nevada.

It's been on the front page of magazines and books throughout Nevada.

It was beautiful, and absent a weather event, it would still be there.

Now, what did that tree do for this area?

It had extraordinary wildlife in it, around it, and facilitated a migratory bird corridor coming through this area, landing and nesting in that tree.

I'll show you what this property owner did out of his own pocket to create an arboreum, create some kind of alternative for the loss of that habitat within that tree.

You'll also see we have eight letters in support, one from the property owner directly behind the structure.

Not one opposition letter, and as you can see behind me, not one public commenter objecting to this.

It's been here for eight years without issue, and I respectfully ask you today to uphold it.

Uh special privileges.

I also note we have eight folks in favor, all the surrounding property owners all in favor.

And my experience with variances, you get a lot of public comment to come out and say, why is this property owner getting a benefit?

Why are we giving this person a privilege?

You're not hearing that today.

There'll be nothing on the record as far as something special being granted here, other than a property owner investing in this property, investing in this community to try to keep this wildlife corridor present.

Also, you'll see later in my presentation, UNR brings out students to come watch and participate in all this wildlife happening in this area.

So I think all findings can be made, but certainly the first two.

So as I mentioned, here's the tree.

The property was previously home to one of the largest trees in the state of Nevada, a cottonwood standing 105 feet tall and 42 feet in circumference.

You can see that person standing there is a pretty phenomenal tree.

Uh, the size of the tree and the property's location within the migratory bird path meant the tree was home to substantial wildlife.

Unfortunately, in 2017, the cultures were forced to remove the tree after beginning to split apart due to uh inclement weather.

Because the tree was of exceptional size and ecological significance, it's removal created a special circumstance that required mitigation.

Rather than tearing this out and ignoring what was going on on this property and around it, they put their money where their mouth is and built this structure that will go into a little farther to help keep those birds and that wildlife in the backyard.

The cultures undertook this efforts to create this arboreum and sanctuary to replace the lost habitat.

Again, I would argue on that finding special circumstance.

I know variances, we do not want to create a precedent that other folks can use and abuse.

I would argue no one could come before you and argue that they lost a 700-year-old tree with the wildlife that goes with it and should be granted a variance.

So respectfully ask and state that we're not creating any precedent here that could be used or abused by other property owners.

The arboreum.

The cultures embarked on an effort to create an arboreum by planting substantial new trees, of course, on their dime.

The effort led to a significant increase in the migratory bird population visiting the area.

I was out there actually a couple days ago.

I wish all of you had the opportunity to go, even in these winter months, it was bustling with activity of birds and wildlife everywhere.

It's pretty impressive.

What's been out there?

What's been noted not only by the culters on the record, but UNR has come out there and had their students observe the following great horn owls, red tailed hawks, falcons, finches, uh woodpeckers, doves, pigeons, quail, blackbirds, bluebirds, blue jays, crows, warbers, wrens, and butterflies.

Um it certainly was bustling when I was there this week, and uh no doubt in the spring and summertime, it's um it's pretty spectacular.

And you can see not only does the wall have bird houses, and I'll explain why, but the trees that were planted, and the mature trees that are still there have nests all over them that again are there because they feel comfortable with this arboreum feel, uh, as well as you'll hear later.

The reason why the bird houses have to be placed so high on the wall is it's been documented that if the bird houses are too low, cats or other predators can get those birds.

So that certain birds only feel comfortable if they're up at a higher level in order to come and mate uh and reproduce.

Smaller birds nest, uh what I was saying is nest in the housing on the habitat structure.

The openings of the bird houses are small enough to exclude starlings, which are invasive, so very particular of who and what birds are coming there.

The arboreum provides safety and protection for the birds and also supports a natural food source for the birds to hunt safely.

Here's just some pictures of an owl that's um is nesting in the backyard.

So this wildlife preservation wall, and you can see here, it looks nice.

Um, that's why, again, we have eight neighbors in support, including the property owner behind uh this structure to protect and cultivate the local wildlife.

The culters built this wildlife preservation structure to shield them and sharing arboreum from high winds and other environmental hazards, and to protect the migratory bird population, which take refuge in the area.

Addition, the cultures have commissioned the creation of various bird houses mounted on the wall to provide that additional shelter.

The height of the wall is necessary, so it wasn't kind of an arbitrary, let's just go 15 feet and eight inches.

Definitely with a lot of research and thought and talking to local experts, how tall that wall needed to be, the one impact the wind, but two to make sure those bird houses were at an adequate height so the birds felt felt safe.

Uh, the height of the wall is necessary to ensure use by the birds.

For example, finches prevert nest boxes placed over eight feet to ensure safety from predators.

And again, as far as the findings, I think all this goes to the special circumstance that is pretty uh unique out here on this property.

Uh part of the application just shows here is that structure.

When we get into the question of is this a wall, is this a fence?

Is this a structure?

Is something else that's not regulated by code?

You can see there's actually a fence behind this structure.

This particular structure you can see just stands on two by fours.

So it's not your typical fence or wall that'll extend down to the dirt.

It kind of gets moved up off the dirt with those two by fours to go up to the appropriate height.

So I still kind of question if this height limitation does, in fact, apply to this particular structure.

Um, but we certainly wanted to go through this process and have our data ask all of you rather than debate with staff whether this even applies.

And so here's a picture from excuse me.

Here's a picture from their uh their backyard.

So you can see right in the middle of that yard, that different colored tree right in the middle, uh, the pine, I believe.

That's where the big 700-foot tree, 700-year-old tree, excuse me, uh, was located.

And you can see it pretty much took up their whole backyard.

But after that tree fell, there was nothing that could be due to preserve it.

Uh, the cultures reinvested in their property, reinvested in the community uh to just make this an exceptional arboreum and and wildlife habitat for the birds and the wildlife that uh we're living in housing and nesting in that tree.

And here's some more pictures.

And certainly you can see, I mean, these were taken where in the winter time where a lot of those branches are bare, but you can imagine in the summer and springtime, for the most part, you can't even see the tree unless you're excuse me, see that structure unless you're in the backyard.

It's pretty much unvisible from the road, pretty much unvisible from the surrounding properties.

The ones that can see it have consented.

Um, but I would argue to you it's not obnoxious, it's not taking advantage of the situation, no special privileges are being given.

They're just trying to mitigate the loss of a pretty spectacular tree in the wildlife that went with it.

And then finally, the no detriment or special privileges.

The wall was in place for eight years, so I could understand maybe if within the first month or maybe first year or two years I was before you, maybe no one in the neighborhood didn't notice it, or they had they didn't have concerns and then changed their mind, but it's been here for eight years uh with no issue.

And as mentioned, um, you can see I don't think I have a pointer, but you could the the on the right hand side where there's those two red dots, right?

You can see the little square there, the rectangle, that's where the structure is exactly.

So those two red dots behind it, those are property owners who have consented to the structure.

So I would argue if there was a special privilege or a detriment to anyone, it would be those property owners, and they've actually consented.

As you move uh along the screen westbound, you can see red dots littered uh around this area with neighbors who um not only don't object but support uh what the cultures have done in their backyard to mitigate the loss of that large tree.

And I'd also note in your staff report that this application went to Washoe County Water Rights Manager, Washoe County Law Enforcement, Washoe County Engineering, Washoe County Capital Projects, Washoe County uh Nevada, Northern Nevada Environmental Health, and the fire department, and no no concerns whatsoever by any of those agencies.

And again, why no detriment or special privileges?

The nature of this property resulting from special circumstances and the necessity to preserve active wildlife, places the cultures in a unique situation, distinct from any other property.

I would say in northern Nevada, so we're not creating an undue um precedent.

The preservation wall is not a privilege, but is this a necessity to protect the existing wildlife population?

And this is what I've stressed a couple times, but I think it is important to show that this is an active arboreum.

Is the wall is supported by neighbors and the community, but also it's open to UNR master gardener tour and is frequently visited by not only locals and folks in Northern Nevada, but UNR Master Gardener class and tour take advantage of this as well.

And finally, the use authorized um staff didn't have an issue with that um findings that can be made.

So with that, Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate the additional time.

I just wanted to get everything on the record, and myself or the property owner, Mr.

Coulter, is here to answer any questions and uh thank you for your indulgence this afternoon.

Thank you.

Shall we uh open it up for any questions?

I have a question.

Please go ahead.

Um Kathy Jillian for the record.

You know, I'm looking at the uh previous item that was just taken off the agenda for the berm, and I'm looking at the administrative penalty notices for each of those items.

And I noticed the one for the berm had a provision that allowed for director's modification.

But the one for the uh the fence wall, um doesn't have that provision for director's modification, and I'm wondering why that is.

Jolene Bertetto, planner for the record.

That's a great question for clarification.

The director's modification that is available for the berm is a specific provision in the county code for grading where a director's modification may be approved with recommendation from the county engineer.

We do not have a similar provision in the code for fences and walls.

Um Trevor, would you have anything else to add to that?

No, I think you nailed it.

Um for the most part, what we have is a very specific situation where in the in the um under certain circumstance circumstances where the county engineer recommends support for such a uh an encroachment into that two-foot setback specifically for grading purposes.

Uh, there's a section in Article 438 of the development code that allows for a director's modification.

And as uh Joe Lean indicated, there's not a similar uh opportunity for wall height adjustments.

Okay.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Uh this Pat Caldo for the record.

I have a question for the applicant, actually.

Um can you tell me what year the house was built?

Someone bring up the property on your paths, all right?

Yeah.

Good afternoon.

Uh Curtis Coulter for the record.

Uh, I bought the house in 1997 from Steve Milstein.

Uh, if you're familiar with the road, it's called Rhodes Road.

Bryce Rhodes built the original house there.

And so this was really the premier property in the hall of Steamboat.

That house was built by Bryce Rhodes in multiple phases, probably starting in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, and we tried to save the property, but the deepest foundation was 14 inches by seven.

And every once in a while you just hear something creak and a wall move.

So we did everything we could to try to preserve it.

And the reason we wanted to preserve it is because of the tree that was in the backyard.

That was that tree in the backyard was in the cover of Nevada big book tree.

It was the largest tree in the state of Nevada, and trees are measured at four and a half feet in their circumference.

Then they get a certain number of points, and they measure the crown and they measure the height.

It was probably 20% more points than the next closest tree in the state of Nevada, and it was the largest Fremont cottonwood in the United States of America.

Um so the the house was the original house was taken down.

We got a C of O at that house uh as it sits now in 2000 October of 2015.

So at the time, this is Pacolder for the record.

So at the time you built your house, were you unaware of the regulations required for fences?

And you just didn't seek to get approval for a 15-foot fence?

Uh we didn't consider it a fence, the fence was behind it.

We considered it a habitat structure.

And so it was a matter, and I looked at the fence height, and so I thought, well, this isn't a fence, it doesn't go to the ground.

Uh if my interpretation was wrong, then so be it.

But when I looked at it, I couldn't find a definition that seemed to fit the habitat structure as being either a fence or a wall, uh, and at least in contemporary vernacular, I thought, well, this really doesn't meet either of those.

I thought it really was just really the replacement of habitat.

Yeah, this Pat Coldwell for the record.

I I can appreciate the fence and you know uh being a fence used for migratory birds and such.

And I actually visited the property and and checked it out, and um, you know, I was quite impressed with what you've done out there overall.

Um but having said that, I I guess I just don't understand why if you go through the building of a home, all the rules, the regulation, the engineering that now when you build a 15-foot fence that, in my opinion, seems to be in front of a house that was potentially uh which was really close to your property line.

That I I guess I don't really understand a 15-foot fence other than to shield that property.

Oh, well, I I guess in part it certainly does that, but the purpose was, and if you look at it, it has air vents in it to let the air through so it doesn't go down with the with the winds we get, but it really was for the habitat, and we spent a lot of time trying to find appropriate habitat.

So we had the uh all the nesting boxes built out of California.

We brought them in.

One of the criteria for them specifically was that they would not be habitat for starlings.

Uh so if you're familiar with starlings, we wanted to make sure those were excluded.

Uh yeah, this Pat Calder for the record.

Um I I do have one other question that um uh no, sorry, I don't have any questions.

Thank you.

Any anybody else?

Leo Richard, you for the record.

Yes, sir.

Leo Horishni for the record.

Um the what was the decision and why was the choice of where you cited your wildlife structure wall, not fence.

Why is this basically basically abutting the existing fence?

Um I I think that's that's really a good question.

If you look at the overall habitat uh the whole ecosystem, um Mr.

Gordon showed you some of them, but there are a number of cottonwoods that are to the north, and so we wanted to sort of contain that entire ecosystem.

There was uh the McNabb Cypress, which is the largest McNabb cypress in the in the Nevada, that was to the south.

The largest uh locust was out to the uh west, and so we just wanted to try to contain it uh within that area so that there would be a safety barrier.

Because if you've if you've been out there and thank you for coming, we have not only eagles, but we have falcons, we have predatory birds, and so having having that type of structure, they either go into trees or they try to find some shelter to to get away from from the predators.

So the purpose of its location was to contain and to identify that that perimeter, if you will, for the uh for the ecosystem that's there.

And it goes it's quite extensively right now.

We have uh we've got a pair of great hounds uh nesting right now, and probably a month we'll have red tails, but we have great horns every year.

They used to be in the big tree, they've moved a little bit, but the the owls hunt the quail, and we probably have I don't know, 500 quail on property, depending on the coyotes and the other birds that are that are hunting them.

So it's sort of like a you know, somebody's in and somebody's out all the time, but uh it goes all the way out in front.

So if you look at the front of the property, you'll see spruce added to the western border and spruce on the south, and the habitat uh is is enormous because it's probably the the pinnacle property out of all of steamboat for nesting habitat for the what for the migratory birds.

The yellow headed finch just started coming back up about two weeks ago, and the redheads should be up in a couple of weeks, I imagine.

Um Leo Horishing for the record, I you know I appreciate the respect and the responsibility for the natural environment that you were in, and that absolutely I can appreciate that the loss of a significant piece of woodland would be um significant.

I am struggling with the idea that you would then as a response to that go to this length for this construction and not consult.

Uh I did console my neighbor, Mr.

Mahoney, uh to consume Mahoney immediately to the east of us.

I and I appreciate that.

That it that certainly, you know, that certainly is um important, but um it's yeah, I it's interesting.

It's it was interesting when I when I read this and I went out and saw the property, and I thought, okay, this is you know, this is a fence that's clearly too high over there, but then now coming here and hearing the issue is the fact that it was sited just adjacent to the fence, so that it can be not called a fence anymore.

Uh that I don't know.

I know that it certainly wasn't.

I'm not comfortable with that.

It wasn't an attempt to try to subvert the the rules.

Uh that wasn't the intent.

Uh right.

Uh so I mean it was we really was an effort to work with our neighbors and uh we've done all of that to to the best of our abilities, and we've we've talked to to our neighbors and asked them, invited them to come out and look at it many times and uh tried to get their input because we're all part uh steamboats a pretty small community and we all get along fairly well.

And so I think what we always try to do is uh maintain the integrity of the valley of the community so somebody's not doing something unusual that offends somebody else.

And I think that was one of the things we tried to accomplish in our efforts.

Uh Peter Cashada for the record question for staff, please.

When you look at code, it talks about fences, walls, or perimeter planting.

So the word perimeter only um attaches to plantings.

If this structure were placed in the middle of the property, would we still be having this issue?

We were just discussing perimeter planting, planting and what that means the other day.

We think perimeter planting primarily refers to a hedge that has the same purpose as a fence or a wall.

Um this doesn't meet the definition, however, of a structure as defined in the definitions in the county code, where a structure is a roofed and walled building.

So I understand that the applicants arguing that it might not meet the exact definition of a wall or fence, but it's also not considered a structure per county code.

But if this were situated in the middle of the property, would we be having this issue?

Yeah.

The code doesn't grant um flexibility in that regard.

So regardless, six foot tall uh is the maximum height for a wall or a fence.

Kathy Julian for the record.

Um just follow up on the chair's comment um question.

But if it were in the middle of the property, then would it be considered a fence in the middle of the property?

And what would it need to be considered a structure in terms of additions to it?

Does that make sense?

And Peter Got if I could follow that.

What if this were not a structure, but it was built as a square or a triangle, then ostensibly it would not be a wall.

Give me a moment, please.

Uh while I'm picking up code.

Um I want to first see if there is a definition of a wall or fence.

Um but beyond that, I can provide a definition for a structure.

And that is a essentially a building that has a minimum of three sides and a roof.

So this is clearly not a structure.

Uh so the question then is, well, well, what is it?

Right?

So I I understand that.

If you give me a moment, I'll uh I'll have to uh to research the uh the code.

Okay.

Anybody have any other questions while Trevor's researching?

Uh yeah, this peck holder for the record.

Um regarding that, a structure can you put two sides on it and put a two-foot roof and say it's now a structure?

Jolene Bertetto, planner for the record.

I'm not positive where it's located in regard to the property line, but uh at its current height, it's possible that it would be built as a structure then into the setbacks, uh, which would also be prohibited.

Yeah, any a structure must meet the set the minimum setback.

So if it were a structure, it would have to be a minimum of in this case 12 feet from the property line.

I see.

Thank you.

Uh follow-up question, Kathy Julia, for the record.

How many feet from the property line is the wall?

That'd be a question for the applicant if you if you're no.

Hello, Curtis Coulter.

I'd say it's approximate.

The the fence is entirely on my property as opposed to a common fence, which would be shared with Mahoney.

And I think it's probably within the property line by a foot, and it has some columns on it.

So I would say if we went to roughly the property line, the habitat structure is probably you know somewhere in the five-foot plus or minus range, maybe a little bit more, maybe a little bit less.

From the property line.

From the property line, it's not on the property line.

And there was a previous question in regard to the the uh unit next door, Mr.

Mahoney's other unit.

I don't remember which was in first, if it was his auxiliary unit or or the or this structure, but I I don't I don't I don't think that it was um it wasn't built because of that uh unit.

So if that clarifies that question.

This peck holder for the record, yes, sir.

Um why not plant mature trees?

Well, I'm 70 almost, and it takes a long time for me to get that big.

Um I can tell you when you plant a tree, they they charge you for the caliper, so the diameter.

So when we put in the the spruce along our driveway, um you you can only get to a certain diameter before they are no longer transplantable.

So what we did try to do is we tried to find mature trees because if I planted ones that were um this lady's age, uh I would be long gone before I get to see them, you know, in their in their full glory.

So it was not only a matter of uh an unreachable uh expense, but really an unavailability.

Uh so you can find in some really extraordinary circumstances, you can find specimen uh specimen trees, and we looked at that.

We looked at it bringing a new specimen tree in.

Uh, we looked as far as the Carolinas uh to bring one back on a on a truck, and you're you're talking about literally hundreds of thousands of dollars if you could find one.

Um, and then the root ball on them are probably you know, probably 12-14 feet.

And so the the practicality of doing it without a guarantee that it would survive was virtually just impossible.

We had to bring a crane out an excavator to take out the system, the root system that was on that tree.

So it was a good question.

We looked at that.

We wanted that.

We wanted to bring that back.

And we just couldn't get there.

We thought maybe we could find some oaks.

We could find some different species that would be compatible with our uh climate.

And it just there was absolutely nothing available.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

Not in question.

Okay.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Lloyd upide for us.

I do have the definition.

Uh a fence means a wall or barrier constructed of boards, masonry, wire, or any other material for the purpose of enclosing space or separating parcels of land.

The term fence does not include retaining walls, but uh does include fence gates and gateposts.

So that's the purpose was Mr.

Rob for the record.

The purpose was what?

Uh the the purpose of enclosing space or separating parcels of land.

Closing space or separating parcels of land.

Doesn't mean that.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Uh do we have any public comments?

I have Rick Blake in Chambers.

Yeah, three minutes, Rick.

Okay.

Yep.

My name is Rick Blake.

Uh one of the red dots there that was up on the screen.

Um, kind of amazing here because I'm only a block or so as a crowflies.

I'm taking down three big cottonwoods even today.

These guys have been on it for about a week.

I should be there with them.

But this is really important.

Um trying to, they've got to come down.

I'm gonna have to do something as well to keep these birds.

You've seen what they are.

They're uh predatory birds, they're the mice, the I mean, the food chain, I think is what we really are trying to keep going here because it's it's very uh delicate out there.

Um, so I think that what Curtis did and Judy was fantastic.

They're they they're keeping this thing going.

Um it's the way it should be to keep keep this uh chain alive.

Um what else am I thinking about as far as um the trees that you were just talking about?

The reason I have to take these down is because the insurance we're uninsurable now.

These trees are so big, mine are 100 feet tall.

Um, we've checked with many.

Our insurance company is already going to cancel us the next renewal, and no other insurance company will pick us up.

So trees all over the place.

I it's gonna be a thing of the pass, and I don't know what people out there are gonna do.

Um, so we do need structures like this to keep this going.

Um all of us, everybody doesn't have a problem with it out there.

We drive by, we see it, it's beautiful, it works.

That's a good thing.

So I consent to all to the variants that they're requesting.

And um the structure, I don't uh feel is in any way detrimental to the area at all.

And no special privileges are being given to the culters.

So I I hope you'll see that it's important for us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

No for the public comment in chambers on Zoom.

I have James Grimes.

If you'll please unmute and state your first last name for the record.

James Grimes.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, please say your first and last name and go ahead.

You have three minutes.

James Grimes, and I own the property uh adjacent to the culters.

Um while I listened to all this uh stuff about the culters and the and the fence and everything.

When I applied for a fence permit, I could only build a fence six foot high.

The culters never applied for a permit, and they build one 15 and a half feet high.

The culters have turned me into the county for everything that they can possibly think of, like the berm, the berm that was removed today.

Well, they called the county on me because uh of backfilling within two feet of their property.

I don't know why it was pulled today.

I've dug the two feet out on my side.

They've called the county on me for every possible thing that they could possibly find in the code.

And now when the code works against them, the culters, they just want to sweep it under the rug.

They're they're protecting the birds.

Well, that's it's not right.

I couldn't build a fence 15 feet high.

They shouldn't build a fence 15 feet high.

I applied for permit, they never applied for a permit.

They never applied for permit for their chicken coop.

You know, they've they've changed all the water flows, piped everything underground without ever asking anybody and then dump that what dump those pipes into my property that I've been dealing with ever since.

So I strongly object to anything that the culture's got going on.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes public comment for this item.

Okay let's uh bring it back to the board for discussion.

Yeah this is raw for the record I um I don't think it meets the definition of a fence for what Mr.

Lloyd said um I think that this was put up in good faith.

Um I understand the issue about the trees because my neighbor got hit her insurance almost got cancelled so I think this is a viable option for what he's trying to do.

It's active he has people coming out I don't think he's getting any that he shouldn't be getting and we have made um adjustments in the past for things like this and for um anyways I I would be in full support of approving this not you know approving it not denying it.

Thanks.

Cathy Julian for the record I I tend to agree that it doesn't meet the definition of a fence because it doesn't it doesn't fully separate the properties I mean it doesn't separate the properties because it there's another fence that separates the property that is in under in conformance with the code.

I also um if the only area of discomfort I have is that should the house next door um I can't remember the name Mahoney should they ever sell would the neighbors next door have an objection to this so I'm just wondering if one could put as a condition here um some reference to subsequent property parcel owners next in that property next door um uh being in agreement with the the structure being there but I'm not sure if that would if that is necessary if one does not interpret that this is a fence but but that's where that's the only concern I would have is to ensure that the neighbor right adjacent is remains comfortable I I would be very reluctant to put a condition for future residents um we do have a letter from the immediate neighbor that you're referring to that property owner that is in support and I think that is is uh I think that's the best that we can get at this point.

Okay.

Then I'm I'm comfortable supporting this uh this Pat Caller for the record I I guess what I worry about is uh you know having heard now Mr.

Grimes and um his concerns that what if one day Mr.

Grimes without a permit decides to build a 15 foot fence along that property line with the culters um you know is that going to be acceptable I don't think so right I mean that that's what I worry about is you make an exception for this and then the neighbor next door clearly there's an issue he wants to build a 15 foot fence without a permit so that's only that's my concern um Leo Harishny for the record um yeah I well and then here piggybacking on uh Pat Pat's statement we have we have someone here coming today uh another person in in the area that though he hasn't said that he might need to or wish to enact a structure due to um having to take down trees and the habitat that he's aware that he will be losing and on his property this by this I I'm really I don't know I'm I'm really struggling with the fact that as close as this was to the fence line um and that it wasn't something this massive something this much money and investment though I appreciate I appreciate the intent and I appreciate the money and goodwill and so forth I also hold someone who has that much energy and intent to understand and appreciate a if I'm going to enact something like this I should likely have to see if what kind of building permits I need and there's no there's been no discussion here so far about this fence being installed or this structure um

I also hold someone who has that much energy and intent to understand and appreciate a if I'm going to enact something like this, I should likely have to see if what kind of building permits I need.

And there's no there's been no discussion here so far about this fence being installed or this structure um, you know, being installed with any um notification by any relevant person at you know at the time and okay, so it's been there for eight years, but then now we have a hostile neighbor next door who who we are setting up to you know create uh uh um the motivation for them to respond as well as a positive neighbor.

We if based on also in enacting a structure based on the fact that because this is a structure and not a fence, even though it's within a fence stone arms throw, not even arms throw, it just feels like something so someone tried to pull something is just that's that's how I and I don't and I can't I don't know how I'm gonna vote on this even right now.

Um thanks, Leo.

Thanks, Leo.

Uh this pack holder for the record.

I I maybe this is a legal question that um to Chaz or Trevor that if we approve this fence, and then the neighbor comes back with a similar request and is denied.

What sort of legal ramifications are there for that?

We may team up on this, but I'll I'll go ahead and take the first tab at it.

Okay, yeah.

Um this I m advice to you all is look at the evidence that you have in front of you, and every variance that is brought forward forward is case by case.

And so we would have to look at the merits of any any uh future variance application.

Are there uh special circumstances, right?

And and so what you are your role is to look at the findings to make sure that if you support this, that you can in fact make all of the findings that uh Jolene uh laid out in her in her staff report.

Can you make the finding for a special circumstances based on a hardship?

Is does this constitute a special privilege, right?

Is there significant detriment?

So again, it's based on the information, the facts that you have in front of you based on the characteristics of the individual property.

So in that regard, I don't believe you're setting a precedent if you can, in fact, make those findings.

Right.

And if there's anything you want to add, no, you uh Trevor Hidden on the points that I would have said as well.

I mean, it's a evidence that's in front of you, and it's a case-by-case basis, making those findings that are required for the variance.

Um, beyond that.

I mean, a different property would have different different circumstances, likely um that you would make those additional findings either to agree or or disagree with.

So thank you.

It's Peter Gishon for the record, I'll weigh in.

Um I'm very familiar with the property.

We um board horses in the area and drive by it um countless number of times over the past five years.

And whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I've never even noticed it.

So I think that that's a good thing because it's well concealed into the community.

Um that I have never noticed it until I drove by yesterday uh and saw it for the first time.

Um the first time I ever disagreed with staff was over a fence variance.

Uh and I think that um we have approved fence variances and we have denied several fence variances because we look at an evidence-based uh examination each time.

Here uh I do find uh an exceptional situation, so I can meet finding A.

Uh I can also meet finding C.

This area is just wild with horses and ponies and um unfortunately Bernard passed away, but he was raising ducks in these structures.

I don't know what to call them.

There's these giant totem holes 15 feet high with netting across the top of them.

So if he could raise ducks and other waterfowl without a permitted um structure, I don't think this would be a grant of a special privilege because people in the area raise all sorts of wild things and all sorts of wild structures.

I know this isn't a structure, but it's also not a fence because we don't meet the definition.

So I can make the five findings.

Um and I think it's uh pretty cool.

Yeah, this is Rob.

I might just add that this was put up in 2017.

Um, and I don't know what's going on with the neighbor, but I don't think you know I think this was if there was a problem with the neighbor, I think you would have brought it up years ago.

So I don't know what happened there.

Yeah, this Peter Gashon for the record.

I think we're gonna have our hands full with the berm uh next time, but um I I think this is inconsequential relative to the neighbor.

And Kathy Julian, for the record, I was out there today and I saw I would be less concerned about a neighbor putting up another fence like or a wall that resembles this as a fence on a on essentially a completely bare piece of land because there would be no special circumstance of any tree that had been taken down or anything to protect.

So I have less of a concern about um I'm going to say a copycat wall installer in in terms of this, so that I I would support this as well.

Okay, any other discussion from the group?

If not, I'll entertain a motion.

This is Rob, I'll make the motion.

I moved that after giving recent consideration on information contained in the staff report and information received during the public hearing.

The Wash County Board of Adjustments approve variance case number WPVAR 25-0011 for the 515 roads wall height variants.

Having been able to make all four findings in accordance with the Wash County Development Code Section 110.804.25.

We have a motion.

Kathy Julian, I second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

All the slides were up.

I want to get rid of that.

It's just there for that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Okay, okay.

Um board items.

Anyone have any requests for future agenda items?

No.

Any requests for information from staff?

Yeah, can we have a raise?

Um directors and legal counsel items report on previous board of adjustment items.

Nothing to report on.

Nothing.

Any legal information or updates?

Casling me for the record, nothing to report on.

Thank you.

Do we have any uh public comment?

There's no further public comment.

Okay, it is now 2 28.

This meeting is adjourned.

Okay.

That was a